In the light of the above case the court passed an order on 26th September 2018.

Issue: Possession of the property in question.

Brief facts: The respondent had an agreement with the complainants wherein he had promised to deliver a said property within a limited time frame amounting Rs. 1, 25, 58,000. And a sum of Rs. 80, 00,000 had already been paid. The rest was to be paid after the property gets delivered. The respondent demanded refund of the money deposited as well as harassment claims that have caused him damage during the non-delivery of the property.

Court’s order: The honourable court decided in favour of the complainant as the respondent had taken the defence of ‘force majeure’ the court concluded that the causes that had stopped the respondent to complete the project, were likely to not end in future as well. These causes were:

Delay in grant of environment clearance

Delay in grant of clearance by national board of wildlife.

But at the same time the respondent does not plans to complete the project as it has put forward its desire to convert it into a housing society under the Deen Dayal Awas Yojna. This would change the whole character of the project, which would meant that the project should stand as declined by the respondents.

Hence, the court ordered the respondents to pay the deposited amount back to the complainants along with interest rate provided in rule 15 of the Haryana real estate regulatory act.

12 different complaints were filed by the parties against the respondent. Here in the court took into consideration a prior case that has been decided, Madhu Sareen vs. BPTP Ltd. The final decision of this case applies to the following complaints as well.

Thus the said complaints were said to be dismissed.

Law: The question of law in this order is that when a case with similar issue, same cause of action is decided it is said to have been applied to one or more parties in question and a new filing of case for every party should not be done. The law finalised in the first case is the final law.

Issue: Respondent has failed to discharge his obligations regarding the properties in which the complainants have invested their money in.

Court: The honourable court held that an official liquidator has been appointed and all the complaints in regards to this issue be sent to the official liquidator and the following complaints stood to be dismissed.

Law: section 359 of the companies act deals with the appointment of official liquidator who is solely a government employ.

The respondents did not sign and a buyer agreement even after repeated requests of the complainant. The complainant had a plot which was to be maintained and developed by the respondent who not do the work at the same time had had all the money deposited by the complainants.

This is the court’s final order in this regard because the respondents had even failed to comprehend to a settlement proceedings.

The court finally ruled in favour of the complainants that they should be returned their deposited amount with interest within 30 days.

The said order has concluded that the complainant has failed to appear before the court twice and at the same time did not file the complaint in the procedure required. The plaint has been dismissed the case and has allowed the complainants to file later when they seem fit.

Law: This order is said to be a dismissal in default of the plaint and is not considered a deemed decree.

The said order was dismissed as the subject matter in question was already filed in another case with various other applicants. The court therefore decided to dismiss a different suit in the same subject matter.